Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news4.ner.bbnplanet.net!news3.near.net!paperboy.wellfleet.com!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!uknet!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!festival!jeff
From: jeff@festival.ed.ac.uk (J W Dalton)
Subject: Re: Putnam reviews Penrose.
References: <3tsgi7$t7g@nnrp.ucs.ubc.ca> <3tsja4$jcq@saba.info.ucla.edu>  <3tslcf$t7g@nnrp.ucs.ubc.ca> <3tt877$qm8@saba.info.ucla.edu> <3tubsr$360@nnrp.ucs.ubc.ca>
Message-ID: <DBnrE5.22q@festival.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Edinburgh University
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 14:10:52 GMT
Lines: 27
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:30067 sci.logic:12301

constab@unixg.ubc.ca (Adam Constabaris) writes:

>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:

>: What persistence?  This is a public venue -- whatever you say carries
>: a presumption of being said for the sake of eliciting a rejoinder.
> 
>Ah yes, but it is a public venue devoted to the discussion of topics 
>related to computers, artificial intelligence, and the philosophy 
>thereof, not to the veracity or lack thereof by workers in related 
>fields.  The context in which my original comment was made concerned the 
>"zealotry" of AI's defenders and foes -- Penrose's original reasoning was 
>quite bad, and this was all I was trying to say.  Note also the original 
>disclaimer.

Why does it matter what first led Penrose to the quantum gravity?
Instead, look at what he does with it after.

>: Surprisingly, the alleged hunch never made it into the book.

>It doesn't stare at you from the pages of TENM; nevertheless, it is a 
>plausible reconstruction of Penrose's thinking therein.

So it was just a reconstruction on Churchland's part?  She didn't,
for instance, hear Penrose say that was his reasoning?

-- jd
